and I said this before, but I think that the actors in this movie look greasy. And I don't mean that they look shady or up to no good, I mean they litterally look like they are in desperate need of a shower.

Oh and there are loads of reviews there that say it is a super kickass movie...
especially compared to the other terrible movies released this/last year.

Uh...

Posted by phduffy on May 17, 2006

How about it's Rotten Tomatoes rating, of an unheard of 87%??

First off, series 7, one of the worst movies I've ever seen, has a 70%.

Secondly:

Movies currently out:

The Propostion : 86%

Akeelah and the Bee: 84%

Water: 88%

United 93: 91%

The Inside Man: 89%

Thank you for Smoking: 87%

Movies released last year:

Capote: 91%

Walk the Line: 83%

Brokeback Mountain: 86%

Wallace and Gromit: 95%

There are currently over 100 movies at rottentomates with scores of 100%. The top rated movie of all time, according to rotten tomatoes, is:
Toy Story 2

I don't have strong feelings one way or another on A History of Violence, but to call a rating of 87% 'unhead of' is just wrong.

sorry

Posted by jessie on May 17, 2006

I retreact the 'unheard of' comment, i had no idea such awful movies were getting such high ratings...gah, brokeback was terrible

but still, a history of violence is a good movie, and is totally undeserving of being picked on so much...really hustle and flow was much worse, so lets pick on it!

wait

Posted by jessie on May 17, 2006

after closer review of the "100 movies at rottentomates with scores of 100%", they are probably deserving of such scores.

There are over 25000 movies on rotten tomatoes, so 100 movies with 100% is less than half a percent of all movies rated. it is actually 0.004% of all rated movies. Not a mind blowing stat when put in perspective.

also, only about 0 to 4 movies per year are put into this category of 100%, most of the time, just one. In 2005 two movies recieved this honour, A State of Mind, which was amazing, everyone must see this movie, and Twist of Faith which i have not seen.

and i don't remember series 7 being that bad (i think i actually liked it)...

????

Posted by Miguel on May 17, 2006

Do I know you?

"A History of Violence is a trerrible movie and I regret that I wasted two hours of my life on it."
Unforgivable...you have my apologies.

"From scene one where the cloyingly annoying daughter wakes up screaming from a nightmare (a movie cliche in itseld), "

That's not the opening scene, but never mind. A history of violence is a play on various cliche saturated genres...from 50's family dramas, to 70's B-Action movies, crime dramas, horror etc. etc. Viggo goes up to his daughter after her nightmare and says something like "there's no such thing as monsters".....only of course there are monsters, Viggo is one of them himself. What I like about the movie is the disconcerting way Cronenberg juxtaposes those cliched bits against his own peculiar vision. So you have a daughter having a nightmare, but a kid also gets shot....Viggo and His wife initially look like the perfect throwback 50's couple but of their two sex scenes, one involves a 69 and the other is basically a rape.

"to the final scene where the family puts themselves back together over meatloaf and the biggest bowl of mashed potatoes I have ever seen,"
The amount of the mashed potatoes bugged you? And do you really think the family is back together again? I think that is really open to interpretation.

"to the spoiler title (I mean, it's called a history of violence -- are we supposed to suprised when tom/joey turns out to have a friggin history of violence?) "
I don't think it's supposed to be that big of a surprise. I actually was told that in advance and my enjoyment of the movie wasn't ruined at all.

"it is a big old mess. Ok, Ed Harris's cameo was good, but William Hurt's was not. And a few minutes of Ed Harris does not a good movie make."

William Hurt is easily one of the best parts of the whole goddam movie. Not that Oscars mean much, but he was up for supporting actor (and was robbed)

Listen.....here's what I liked about it:

Cronenberg's strangely timed jokes and meticulously choreographed outbursts of righteous violence, which sometimes go one on top of the over. You laugh uncomfortably and then subside into shocked silence.

I love how it impersonates an action flick in its crazy mayhem while questioning these violent attractions every step of the way, all while impliating the viewer.

It's contradictory and strange, bizarre and meticulous....it's the best movie of 2005.

OK, next up try Brick....it's my favorite movie of 2006 so far. Match Point is amazing too!

Addendum

Posted by Miguel on May 17, 2006

Series 7 sucks.

a little more

Posted by jenn_in_ireland on May 18, 2006

miguel, i'm one of the girls that used to give you guys cookies in CCK. (jenn = red hair)

and the way you talk about AHOV makes me *want* to like it. but i still don't! :-)

in the movie's defense, i don't think it's the worst movie ever made. i just don't think it deserved all of the acclaim it got. so i felt ripped off after i watched it.

jenn

Posted by jessie on May 18, 2006

i can respect that, i have felt that way about every movie i have watched this year (except a history of violence, but i hadn't really heard anything about it before seeing it)

Meh

Posted by Nerhael on May 18, 2006

Reactions to movies can be driven by all sorts of things.

Hype that's built up for it creating unreasonable expectations can ruin it often, and the people you watch it with can make a huge impact.

I remember watching that series 7 movie with a couple people, and silently wishing someone would just turn it off and put us out of our misery.

I watched it later with a different group of people, and actually enjoyed it. I'm not sure if my mood was radically different, or if it was more a result of the random remarks made by group 2 during the movies run.

I will also say I find it funny how defensive people get when someone says they really didn't like a movie that they themselves enjoyed. It's like they attacked your character as a person or something. "OMG WTF?!?!?!?!?!111"

Anyhow, back to freezing. Stupid rain is making it way too cold today.

Oh!

Posted by Miguel on May 18, 2006

Hi Jenn!

I totally remember you...your cookies rocked!

After looking at my post I realize I might have come off as being a bit of an ass. It totally wasn't my intention to come off as snippy. I obviously really liked History of Violence, but you didn't and hey, that's cool with me! There's probably some movies you love and that I can't stand.

If you ever feel like it, watch it again and see if you can get a different handle on it. But if not, and if you can find it in Ireland, go watch Brick...you won't be disappointed.

And I totally agree with you Pete, and I am trying not to go off into a rage when someone shafts a movie I like, it's just different strokes for difference folks.

well

Posted by phduffy on May 18, 2006

after closer review of the "100 movies at rottentomates with scores of 100%", they are probably deserving of such scores.

That's fine. I'm just saying that 87% is not unheard of, which I think we agree on, and that rotten tomatoes isn't always all that accurate. The highest rated movie of all time according to them is Toy Story 2.

As for history of violence

I think that when people say that parts of History of Violence are really cheesy they're missing the point. The parts with everyone hugging the daughter, or with the bully freaking out because the son caught his ball in a baseball game, are supposed to be ludicrous. That's the point.

As for the rest of the movie, I just found it meh. I went to the rotten tomatoes forums to see if I could figure out what the big deal was, and apparently the deal is that violence is always simmering under the surface, and are we capable of violence, etc. I also thought that part of the point was to make the lovey dovey family scenes completely ridiculous, and make the violence seem real. And somehow Croenberg says that it's a critique of the Iraq war. I still haven't figured that one out.

That said, I'm more interested in movies that tell a good story, as opposed to movies that have these mysteries wrapped in enigmas and other messages. I'd give it a solid 7/10. And I liked Brokeback Mountain better, although I don't really think any of the top nominees for best picture at the Oscar were all that great. (I don't think that the serious fare from last year produced anything better than Batman, Sin City or Kiss Kiss Bang Bang 3 popcorn movies that were great.

I remember watching that series 7 movie with a couple people, and silently wishing someone would just turn it off and put us out of our misery.

I watched it later with a different group of people, and actually enjoyed it. I'm not sure if my mood was radically different, or if it was more a result of the random remarks made by group 2 during the movies run.

I knew this when I posted, and I thought about trying to scare up another example of how rotten tomatoes isn't that good, but meh, Series 7 is a vile disgusting movie.

I will also say I find it funny how defensive people get when someone says they really didn't like a movie that they themselves enjoyed. It's like they attacked your character as a person or something. "OMG WTF?!?!?!?!?!111"

That's true, but it goes both ways. For example, in terms of AHOV, there are people (not here but at rottentomatoes) who suggest that the people who don't like it "aren't sophisticated enough to get it". Bullshit to that. You see the same thing with Lost in Translation.
And again, it can go the other way, where people will say something like "I'd be embarrased to be seen reading the DaVinci Code", which will naturally offend someone who liked the book.

After looking at my post I realize I might have come off as being a bit of an ass.

Dude, she called her reivew "A History of Shit". I don't think you have to worry about being snark. (Iccidentally, A History of Shit would be a fucking terrible movie).

The thing with rotten tomatoes is

Posted by Miguel on May 18, 2006

You have to know the site's limitations.

All rottentomatoes does his agglomerate a ton of critics' opinions of a particular movie. It determines wether they are positive or negative and runs an average of all those opinions. It's good for a quick scan to see if a whole bunch of critics liked a movie or not.

Those tomato scores should definitely NOT be used as significant rating of a movie, especially because the site doesn't go into degrees or nuances of a rating.

So in Series 7 for example, maybe those 70% of critics who gave it a positive rating only gave it 5 or 6 out of ten, or thumbs in the middle or 2 1/2 out of 4 stars....but the site does not recognize that, to them a review is either fresh or rotten with no shades in between.

I use it to quickly go to my favorite critics and check out their opinions on a particular movie, or to laugh at the retarded critics (just check out anyone from the orlando sentinel).

I actually remember checking into some reviews that were labelled fresh, which in my opinion should have been rated rotten...this happens when a critic doesn't have a rating system (like the New Yorkers film critic or village voice I think) and just writes about the movie.

So not snippy

Posted by jenn_in_ireland on May 19, 2006

Miguel, you so weren't an ass! I enjoyed reading your take on the movie and I meant it when I said it made me *want* to like the movie.

I initially started a conversation about AHOV on Rotten Tomatoes but quickly got bored and I think only posted twice. The default defense of the movie on RT was that I didn't get it. Now, I don't proclaim to be a genius (ok yes I do) but I get pastiche and satire and irony and all of those fun things, I just didn't think the movie worked. I swore I would never watch it again, but maybe one night if I have nothing to do, I'll give it another whirl.